Mutual ignore software feature, AKA Yet Another Policy Discussion

Discussion in 'The Undercity' started by seebs, Mar 16, 2017.

  1. rigorist

    rigorist On the beach

    That makes about as much legal sense (and you did make a legal claim here) as holding a certain guardian legally responsible for the harm done by his ward when he failed to properly restrain and control his ward. Or of holding the employer responsible for exposing an employee to an unsafe and dangerous condition in the form of a potentially violent contractor because the contractor is very skilled at certain profitable things for the employer.

    Proximate cause is an interesting and important part of the law of torts.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
  2. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    It did get very complicated.
     
  3. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Some peoples think the short form of that experience was cut-and-dried, all settled nicely, because I did not post any followup discussion.
    I didn't for many reasons. Some of which was Rigs using outdated court cases that did not actually apply to try to make me look bad. Some of which was that everything I said in the past was being used to harass my family.
    In short - y'all don't got all the facts and I is not giving more because I know they will be used to harass me and my family again.
     
  4. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    I don't understand... anything about law, really. I can't defend my original or parse much of your response, and I... think you're saying I'm wrong, but even when I'm fresh and energized, my brain seriously refuses to participate when it comes to reading legal things :P I'm just going from Lissa's original incident, where her contract included terms for how people could interact with her and folks were warned and such, then when the guy who grabbed her was going to try to get money from her (sue her? not sure how he was trying to do the thing) for assaulting(?) him, it didn't go anywhere because of the precautions she'd taken in setting up the contract and all. And then the practical contrast of knowing if I beat up a guy in my office for grabbing me once, I'd personally be super fucked.

    I'm sure I'm using words that won't hold up in a strict legal sense, hahaha. I get proximate cause as a thing, but I'm totally adrift about defining how it actually applies in practice. I used to think I wanted to be a patent attorney, and I'm smart enough to do it, but once it comes down to being careful with very particular definitions and such, the way you have to do in law, my mind just nopes away at high speed.
     
  5. rigorist

    rigorist On the beach

    As L points out above, the rest of us are not privy to all the facts and agreements, or to the actual outcome, so what we say is going to be awfully speculative and likely wrong.

    My point is that causation is a tricky and complicated thing. I think you're doing a pretty good job showing that. One thing you are missing is that as societies and systems we make choices about which causes we are willing to hold culpable for various effects. Those choices can be based on all sorts of reasoning; some good and some not-so good. But the important thing is that those choices are not necessarily based on any coherent or stable theory of how the world of cause and effect work. In the lab, A->B may be true. It may not be true in other contexts.
     
    • Like x 2
  6. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Don't worry about it, @spockandawe - Rigs just has some grudge against me and anyone that tries to defend me - probly cause I call him an asshole every chance I get.
     
    • Like x 2
  7. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    The short answer is: In general, we think hurting other people for your own benefit is typically wrong. Why is theft wrong? Because you get stuff by taking stuff from other people.

    Why do we think that? Because it's a rule you need to have for a society to be stable enough to leave people room to pursue their goals, at all. Without it, there's no way to get anything done.

    In short, I'm not super interested in the moral argument, because moral arguments are inherently all about premises people won't share. But we don't have to have that; we just have to discuss what rules we need for a society to be reasonably functional, and it turns out that overall we are all much better off with a general rule of "hurting people is bad, but possibly tolerable when it's self-defense".
     
    • Like x 2
  8. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    You know, given that people have been trying to figure this out longer than we've had written language, and haven't really gotten there, I doubt it's gonna happen.

    But to a first approximation: Resulting in net harm to people, taken as a whole. That's not really exactly it, and harm is really hard to define accurately, but... For the most part, you can get reasonably close and have general agreement on broad principles.
     
  9. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    For certain basic words, you start to run low on synonyms, just cause you start to run out of language :P My initial rough guess: net harm outweighs net benefit, which also means disagreements on how much harm was done or how much benefit was received, and how people would weight those things. For people who are removed from the positive return you get, the entertainment, they're likely to think that isn't significant. You're removed from the people who are being hurt, and they're coming from a headspace that's probably tricky for you to access, so you're more likely to weight their pain lightly.

    eta: man, I saw early and typed fast with a good idea, and seebs still beat me to it :(
     
    • Like x 2
  10. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Sort of "least harm" - anything that is not aimed at that is "bad". If there is no one but yourself involved then you gets to decide if is bad or not. If other peoples is involved then you has to aim for "least harm" because if you don't then peoples get pissed off and beat you to death, eventually.
     
  11. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Mmm, but in the less extreme ground in the middle, there's some more neutral territory and room for debate, which is what I think anonymous is getting at. If they only posted sincere, content-having posts that were only meant to inspire positive reactions (aiming at least harm), okay, that's pretty not-bad, even without being able to lock down a solid definition for what bad means. But expecting anyone to always stick to least harm puts a lot of pressure on them, a pretty unmanageable amount of pressure. I don't (usually) try to upset people, but sometimes I'm doing a thing that I know may upset people, and decide that my actions are justified, or at the very least something I wouldn't outright condemn.

    Where anonymous lives is more in a neutral area, where they're... ahh, words. Okay. In theory, trolling is aiming for a mildly negative response, but one at a level that's fairly harmless to most people. When I get irritated at their posts, that reaction means they've done some not-great things to me, but given the end result from my point of view, I'd be reluctant to call it outright bad. Your reaction to that input is a lot stronger, and something they're not calibrated to expect (and even once they're told to expect it, it's something that most of the people reading it still won't feel, so something something on average it's still fine, as far as they're thinking).

    Like with my brothers, I... haha, I definitely don't aim for least harm. All of us have deliberately done a whole lot to torque off the others. And with a few exceptions where one of us has gone too far, I wouldn't call most of those actions bad. They're not positive actions, they're definitely kinda negative, but labeling them as "bad" has some pretty strong, severe connotations to it. Anonymous disputes that their actions should be classified that way, I think somewhat because they don't think the negative net result is that strong, and somewhat because they want a definition of where the line between bad and not-bad lies.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2017
    • Like x 1
  12. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    I think it's worth distinguishing between friendly antagonism and unfriendly antagonism. People will frequently tease their friends, and that looks similar to behavior intended to hurt, but it really isn't intended to hurt. On the other hand, trying to produce genuine anger is usually going to be intended to hurt.
     
    • Like x 1
  13. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Anonymous is being told that their actions inspire negative reactions, resulting in harm. And that this harm outweighs the positive reaction anonymous gets from the entertainment. Anonymous (and most people) are also familiar with negative reactions that don't equate to harm, so they're balking at the idea negative reaction = harm. Extreme example: emotional trauma leading to ptsd is a (persisting) negative reaction that matches up to harm. Less extreme: taking a bite of a food you dislike is a (transient) negative reaction that doesn't usually lead to harm. And also, I think, they're saying that even if some harm results, they're disagreeing with how much harm their actions cause, and that it necessarily outweighs the entertainment value they get from the experience. I'm not digging up the A->B->C thing, but that stuff.
     
    • Like x 1
  14. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    In-between example: My brothers and I were absolutely trying to get each other angry, but it still wasn't intended to hurt. The point where hurt happened was usually the point where we were like ohhhhh shit, shit, I fucked up
     
    • Like x 2
  15. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Additional disagreement over harm caused: roleplay derails on here. Some people are amused, some don't care, some are annoyed, and some are upset because the derails mess up their sense of reality. Those people get vocal about can we not, and tend to be very fast to ask for the derails to relocate. Some of the roleplayers aren't that happy, because come on, it's pretty harmless, and we're having fun. Just because a few people have an unusually strong negative reaction, does that mean that we have to tailor all of our behavior to them and we're never allowed to do a fun thing?

    Not offering an opinion, just an accessible example from forum history
     
    • Like x 2
  16. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    The difference is you are family - in general you know each other's limits and when you go past them you is sorry.
     
  17. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Derails are not the same as poking at someone or their posts with the intent of upsetting them.
     
  18. spockandawe

    spockandawe soft and woolen and writhing with curiosity

    Trouble is I can think of a counter to probably everything. Cdcf poking, I didn't do a lot of it INTENDING to do harm, but knowing it would be upsetting. I didn't post about Wiwaxia INTENDING to do harm, but I knew it would be upsetting.
     
  19. Lissa Lysik'an

    Lissa Lysik'an Dragon-loving Faerie

    Those aren't counters, they are examples of bad. CDCF poking at Ray is bad, Wax's stated intent to hurt people is bad. CDCF isn't always about poking at Ray (and isn't supposed to be - the originator has said that was not the intent) but when it is poking it is bad regardless of what a person's opinion of Ray is. Trying to hurt someone is bad.
     
  20. seebs

    seebs Benevolent Dictator

    To clarify, I would argue that if someone gets actually angry, the were in fact "hurt", even if they were not hurt seriously. Distinguish between "pain" and "injury". You don't have to be injured to have experienced pain.

    And just to be clear, I would agree that a lot of the CDCF stuff is harmful, and I don't know how to address that. I'm not always good at remembering that. Moral standards are rarely things people actually live up to. (And in practice, the people I'm most afraid of are the ones who are quite sure they are not behaving immorally.)
     
    • Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice